From the mouth (fingers?) of Shokai

Neutral - The goal is the only thing of importance, how it's accomplished does not matter, but as a general rule...the path of least harm is prefered...but if a few people must die for the cause, so be it.


Let's say, hypothecially, my character's "goal" is to exterminate both good and evil for whatever reason(*). Isn't this a viable neutral role? I think so... In Jisjis's case, killing neutrals who weren't directly opposing his goal deviates from the path of least harm, but I don't think that, as a general rule, you can't play a seemingly bloodthirsty nuetral character.

If my goal was to prevent nuclear war IRL, and I consider religion to be the most likely source of such a war, would I be an evil man for attempting to abolish/destroy/disband all organized religion? Even if the penalty for organized religion was death, but the *goal* was preservation of the human race, is it evil? That's more of a philosophical question, but in CF where murder is rampant and acceptable even by the most pious, I'd say an anti-good, anti-evil character *should* be a perfectly viable role option.

Laearrist

p.s. Obviously this particular character was more about random killing than anything else, but that doesn't mean every gnome needs to be a near pacifist.

(*)For the sake of argument I consider them a dangerous force which will likely lead to the destruction of all Therans and Thera itself